[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Gary is arguing something different than everyone else in the world is
saying.
--scott

No Scott, not quite. Have you heard about MBL, Bose, Magneplanar, Martin
Logan, Shahinian, Beolab Linkwitz, etc etc etc?

There are many multi-directional speakers out there. They build them because
they sound better. They just haven't got a comprehensive theory to explain
what they are hearing.

Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Gary is arguing something different than everyone else in the world is
saying. --scott

No Scott, not quite. Have you heard about MBL, Bose, Magneplanar,
Martin-Logan, Shahinian, Beolab, Linkwitz, etc etc etc?

There are many multi-directional speakers out there. They build them
because they sound better. They just haven't got a comprehensive
theory to explain what they are hearing.

Gary, multi-directional speakers do not inherently sound better. (I point
particularly to the Shahinians, the earlier models of which were badly
colored.) Electrostatic and orthodynamic speakers are inherently dipoles, and
they sound better simply because they more-accurately transduce the signal fed
to them. If you don't believe this, listen to electrostatic and orthodynamic
headphones. This is the unanswerable argument to those (such a certain
Canadian with a PhD) who claim such speakers aren't inherently superior.

To put it simply... a speaker's basic "accuracy" is considerably more
important than its radiation pattern. You haven't learned this yet, which is
why you continue stumbling down the wrong road.

[Scott Dorsey]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
There are many multi-directional speakers out there. They build them
because they sound better. They just haven't got a comprehensive
theory to explain what they are hearing.

No, that's not why they build them, that's the point. The pattern is not
what makes them sound good.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Gary is arguing something different than everyone else in the world is
saying.
--scott

No Scott, not quite. Have you heard about MBL, Bose, Magneplanar, Martin
Logan, Shahinian, Beolab Linkwitz, etc etc etc?

As usual, you have not been paying attention. This gets tiresome. Any
idea what Scott's using for monitors? Any alert human using this news
forum knows. But not you? Wonder why that is?

There are many multi-directional speakers out there. They build them because
they sound better. They just haven't got a comprehensive theory to explain
what they are hearing.

Oh, of course€¦ not.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Trevor]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
There are many multi-directional speakers out there. They build them
because they sound better. They just haven't got a comprehensive theory to
explain what they are hearing.

What they do have is differening tastes amongst the population. Obviously
some people like them, and some people don't. No justification or theories
are necessary, only sales.

Trevor.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

Gary, multi-directional speakers do not inherently sound better. (I point
particularly to the Shahinians, the earlier models of which were badly
colored.) Electrostatic and orthodynamic speakers are inherently dipoles,
and they sound better simply because they more-accurately transduce the
signal fed to them. If you don't believe this, listen to electrostatic and
orthodynamic headphones. This is the unanswerable argument to those (such
a certain Canadian with a PhD) who claim such speakers aren't inherently
superior.

To put it simply... a speaker's basic "accuracy" is considerably more
important than its radiation pattern. You haven't learned this yet, which
is why you continue stumbling down the wrong road.

What does frequency response accuracy have to do with imaging?

When you talk about "accuracy," accuracy of what compared to what? Exactly?

Gary Eickmeier

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

What does frequency response accuracy have to do with imaging?

Gary, try making a multitrack mix some day. You can practice with the help
of raw-tracks.com. And try comparing on your "b-monitors", within reason
"the more the merrier". Just as with the bible, my old religions(!) teacher
said "never have less than three translations in the household if you want
to have any hope of getting in touch with the original text"; imo that also
holds true for monitoring.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

To put it simply... a speaker's basic "accuracy" is considerably more
important than its radiation pattern. You haven't learned this yet, which
is why you continue stumbling down the wrong road.

What does frequency response accuracy have to do with imaging?

Little. Imaging is not the most-important aspect of a speaker's sound.


When you talk about "accuracy," accuracy of what compared to what? Exactly?

Whether what comes out, sounds like what went in. Properly designed planar
speakers are /categorically/ superior in this regard. If you make your own
recordings, you should have no trouble hearing this.

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

What does frequency response accuracy have to do with imaging?

An enormous amount. Not just frequency response as a function of direction,
but in addition overall frequency response.

I can play two samples back, one of which has had a peak at 8kc added, and
people will say that the stereo image on the one with the high end boost is
wider.

Imaging is affected by _everything_ including frequency response and
nonlinearity, and if you do not get those things right you will not get
imaging right.

When you talk about "accuracy," accuracy of what compared to what? Exactly?

Does it sound in the glass booth the same way it sounds outside in the hall
where the band is playing? We can quantify this, but in the end that is
what counts.

There is a lot of trickery that can be employed to give you wide images,
deep images, and images with very sharp positioning, but in the end these
things are disingenuous because they produce effects that you don't actually
hear in the real hall.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

There is a lot of trickery that can be employed to give you wide images,
deep images, and images with very sharp positioning, but in the end these
things are disingenuous because they produce effects that you don't
actually
hear in the real hall.

Though we are on "the same side" in this, the fact is that miking an
orchestra close-up does not produce the same acoustic cues one hears in
the hall. The consensus is that an accurate speaker sounds like the
recording, not like what one would hear in the hall -- unless that's what
the recording engineer tried to achieve.

"What is on the recording" compared to "what you would hear in the hall" is
too easy an answer. There are many, many aspects or characteristics of sound
to be accounted for here. Everyone likes to say that my system sounds just
like what I heard in the hall, but we all know that that is not possible.
You can come close in some aspects, but eventually acoustic reality sets in
and you have to face the real problem of how to make one room sound like
another, which is not possible.

One side wants to get rid of the playback room with acoustic absorption, but
we know that you don't want to go too far down that road with just two
speakers. Another group wants to use the room and its surfaces to mimic the
spatial aspect a little better. Possibly a third one we could define wants
to go to a binaural or loudspeaker binaural recording and reproduction, but
that doesn't apply to legacy two channel recordings. Finally, we might
include William's fave rave Ambisonics surround sound, which tries to get
the spatial more correct by using additional speakers and encoding all
directions. This is fine for one listener, but doesn't fulfill my concept of
realism for a larger audience

In all of these systems, ideas, concepts, we see the need to reproduce not
just the spectral aspect, but also the spatial and temporal. My list of
"what we can hear" in the broadest sense is we can hear the power, physical
size, spectral accuracy and noise and distortion in the signal chain, and
spatial characteristics. That is a hell of a lot more than the spectral
accuracy of the electro-acoustical chain.

A lot of "experts" think that the system is a simple matter of the
"accuracy" of the measured spectrum and distortion of what comes out of the
speakers comared to the raw audio signal that went into them. Some extend
that out to "the signal" that went into the microphones, as if the summed
signal that goes into this assumed purist pair of microphones represents all
acoustical properties of everything that you can hear standing there. So
their search for audio Nirvana is a search for greater and greater accuracy.

Well, as Al used to say on Home Improvement when the boss was wrong, "I
don't think so Tim."

Gary Eickmeier

[Luxey]

If microphones can not sense it, it can not be recorded.
If it's not recorded, it can not be played baack.
If it's not played back, you can not hear it.
How can you improve it, if it's not only inaudiable, but not present, at all.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

"What is on the recording" compared to "what you would
hear in the hall" is too easy an answer. There are many,
many aspects or characteristics of sound to be accounted
for here. Everyone likes to say that [their?] system sounds
just like what [they?] heard in the hall, but we all know
that that is not possible.

Oh, but it is. It's called Ambisonics. Your failure to accept this fact is
telling.

It is possible, with technology that has existed for almost 40 years, to
closely approximate the concert-hall performance. I know, because I've made
such recordings. The fact that Ambisonics is not commercially viable is beside
the point.

IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE LISTENING ROOM TO SIMULATE THE CONCERT HALL.
Period! This is true on both practical and theoretical grounds.

Now, find something constructive to do with your time, instead of chasing
after something you will never achieve.

[Luxey]

On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 15:08:33 UTC+1, William Sommerwerck wrote:

IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE LISTENING ROOM TO SIMULATE THE CONCERT HALL.

Period! This is true on both practical and theoretical grounds.

At the same time, IMO, it'd be totally wrong and counter productive. If anything, better option would be to eliminate everything correlated, i.e.
make the listening room as different from "there" as possible, so you have
better chance to differentiate btw "here" and "there", thus possibly getting
immersed in "there" only, should that be your goal first place.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

There is a lot of trickery that can be employed to give you wide images,
deep images, and images with very sharp positioning, but in the end these
things are disingenuous because they produce effects that you don't actually
hear in the real hall.

Though we are on "the same side" in this, the fact is that miking an orchestra
close-up does not produce the same acoustic cues one hears in the hall. The
consensus is that an accurate speaker sounds like the recording, not like what
one would hear in the hall -- unless that's what the recording engineer tried
to achieve.

Right. And I'm not saying that there might not be someday some way to
effectively fake those acoustic cues.... if you had enough mikes around an
instrument that you could get a good sense of the sound in different directions
you could predict how they'd interact with the room. But right now, there
is no such way. And, in the end, having such a method doesn't buy you
anything other than more things to go wrong.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Luxey" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 15:08:33 UTC+1, William Sommerwerck wrote:

IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE LISTENING ROOM TO SIMULATE THE
CONCERT HALL. Period! This is true on both practical and theoretical
grounds.

At the same time, IMO, it'd be totally wrong and counter productive.
If anything, better option would be to eliminate everything correlated, i.e.
make the listening room as different from "there" as possible, so you have
better chance to differentiate btw "here" and "there", thus possibly getting
immersed in "there" only, should that be your goal first place.

I see nothing inconsistent in these points of view.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

There is a lot of trickery that can be employed to give you wide images,
deep images, and images with very sharp positioning, but in the end these
things are disingenuous because they produce effects that you don't
actually
hear in the real hall.

Though we are on "the same side" in this, the fact is that miking an
orchestra
close-up does not produce the same acoustic cues one hears in the hall. The
consensus is that an accurate speaker sounds like the recording, not like
what
one would hear in the hall -- unless that's what the recording engineer
tried
to achieve.

Right. And I'm not saying that there might not be someday some way to
effectively fake those acoustic cues.... if you had enough mikes around an
instrument that you could get a good sense of the sound in different
directions
you could predict how they'd interact with the room. But right now, there
is no such way. And, in the end, having such a method doesn't buy you
anything other than more things to go wrong.

It's unfortunate there are no "definitions" of standardized home listening
rooms. If one is building a custom house, one should be able to tell the
architect "Make it like this", and one gets a good listening room. Similarly,
tract builders could use such living rooms as a selling point.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

There is a lot of trickery that can be employed to give you wide images,
deep images, and images with very sharp positioning, but in the end these
things are disingenuous because they produce effects that you don't
actually
hear in the real hall.

Though we are on "the same side" in this, the fact is that miking an
orchestra
close-up does not produce the same acoustic cues one hears in the hall. The
consensus is that an accurate speaker sounds like the recording, not like
what
one would hear in the hall -- unless that's what the recording engineer
tried
to achieve.

Right. And I'm not saying that there might not be someday some way to
effectively fake those acoustic cues.... if you had enough mikes around an
instrument that you could get a good sense of the sound in different
directions
you could predict how they'd interact with the room. But right now, there
is no such way. And, in the end, having such a method doesn't buy you
anything other than more things to go wrong.

It's unfortunate there are no "definitions" of standardized home listening
rooms. If one is building a custom house, one should be able to tell the
architect "Make it like this", and one gets a good listening room. Similarly,
tract builders could use such living rooms as a selling point.

Few care enough to bother, and those who do already know an architect
who can manage that. You'd have better marketability by throwing in a
pair of new earbuds with the purchase of the house.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

It's unfortunate there are no "definitions" of standardized home listening
rooms. If one is building a custom house, one should be able to tell the
architect "Make it like this", and one gets a good listening room. Similarly,
tract builders could use such living rooms as a selling point.

Call Pelonis or Augsburger.... I think this could be a small but lucrative
market.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
"What is on the recording" compared to "what you would hear in the hall"
is too easy an answer. There are many, many aspects or characteristics of
sound to be accounted for here. Everyone likes to say that my system
sounds just like what I heard in the hall, but we all know that that is
not possible. You can come close in some aspects, but eventually acoustic
reality sets in and you have to face the real problem of how to make one
room sound like another, which is not possible.

One side wants to get rid of the playback room with acoustic absorption,
but we know that you don't want to go too far down that road with just two
speakers.

No problem, proponents suggest 7.1 systems would solve that. Of course that
means recordings actually made for it rather than stereo.


Another group wants to use the room and its surfaces to mimic the spatial
aspect a little better. Possibly a third one we could define wants to go to
a binaural or loudspeaker binaural recording and reproduction, but that
doesn't apply to legacy two channel recordings. Finally, we might include
William's fave rave Ambisonics surround sound, which tries to get the
spatial more correct by using additional speakers and encoding all
directions. This is fine for one listener, but doesn't fulfill my concept
of realism for a larger audience

NO system works for a "larger" audience in a smallish room, so I can't see
that as a negative over current systems.


In all of these systems, ideas, concepts, we see the need to reproduce not
just the spectral aspect, but also the spatial and temporal. My list of
"what we can hear" in the broadest sense is we can hear the power,
physical size, spectral accuracy and noise and distortion in the signal
chain, and spatial characteristics. That is a hell of a lot more than the
spectral accuracy of the electro-acoustical chain.

A lot of "experts" think that the system is a simple matter of the
"accuracy" of the measured spectrum and distortion of what comes out of
the speakers comared to the raw audio signal that went into them. Some
extend that out to "the signal" that went into the microphones, as if the
summed signal that goes into this assumed purist pair of microphones
represents all acoustical properties of everything that you can hear
standing there. So their search for audio Nirvana is a search for greater
and greater accuracy.


Personally I place imaging well down the list from noise, distortion and
frequency response accuracy. I'd rather good mono than bad stereo any day.
But that's just me. Everyone has their own ideas it seems.

Trevor.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...


Right. And I'm not saying that there might not be someday some way to
effectively fake those acoustic cues.... if you had enough mikes around an
instrument that you could get a good sense of the sound in different
directions
you could predict how they'd interact with the room. But right now, there
is no such way. And, in the end, having such a method doesn't buy you
anything other than more things to go wrong.
--scott

I don't think it is necessary to get every angle of the whole spherical
output identical; all you need to do is get the general ratios and spatial
patterns more like live. By the time all of the off axis output of all of
the instruments gets integrated into the reverberant field such accuracy as
you describe is not necessary. That is how we hear the timbre of the
instruments in the first place. The total acoustical output of the
instrument is heard in the reverberant field, which also gives the
spaciousness of a good hall and good placement of the instruments, and so
on.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

It's unfortunate there are no "definitions" of standardized home listening
rooms. If one is building a custom house, one should be able to tell the
architect "Make it like this", and one gets a good listening room.
Similarly, tract builders could use such living rooms as a selling point.

There is the IEC standard room but I don't think it is big enough. If the
current love of open spaces and "great rooms" holds, there is a chance that
a person could hang some fine sounding speakers from the ceiling just the
right distances from all walls at the front end, put some subs in the
corners out of the way, and then surround sound is easy. A flat screen at
that front end completes the home theater, and none of it takes up any Wife
Acceptance room.

The only problem remaining is being able to play it loud enough to not
disturb neighbors or others in the house.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

It's unfortunate there are no "definitions" of standardized home listening
rooms. If one is building a custom house, one should be able to tell the
architect "Make it like this", and one gets a good listening room.
Similarly,
tract builders could use such living rooms as a selling point.

Call Pelonis or Augsburger.... I think this could be a small but lucrative
market.
--scott

You know what guys - I did it with this dedicated listening room/ home
theater home I built 25 years ago, but my better half is going to make me
move and leave it all soon. I designed it all so that it would appeal to a
prospective bride and yet be the best audio room I could conceive. It looks
like a huge family room, fireplace on one end (covered over with a glass and
brass front), it has some nice acoustic treatment that I made from some
half-rounds and pretty grill cloth; it has pictures and miniature musical
instruments decorating the walls (and acting as dispersion, heh...) and
three nice, overstuffed leather sofas for watching and listening. Projector
is overhead, screen is the far front wall painted white. All electronics are
in the adjacent room, which doubles as my editing room for video. The only
thing you see of electronics in the home theater is the remote controls and
infra red relay.

It is a 2800 sq ft pool home in the cul-de-sac of a nice, smallish 80 home
subdivision, four bedrooms one of which is the edit room. Air conditioned
and 3 car garage with opener -

And on and on, but you know what? All of this is not suitable to the little
lady because she didn't have a hand in designing it, and also because she
would not be able to handle it upon my demise.

So I've got to get all of my audio experimentation out of my system and
enjoy it while ai may, because tomorrow is another day. Bye bye ideal
listening room and laboratory for my audio ideas. Hello apartment or
whatever. Bye bye custom IMP speakers, hello Ebay.

Hey, we're all in this together. I have been very fortunate over the years,
but I am over 70 now and got to take care of the family before myself.

HELP

Gary Eickmeier

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

[planning moving away from house with purposebuilt listening room]

... also
because she would not be able to handle it upon my demise.

It is very wise to ensure that ones housing matches ones situation in life,
and no harm is done by scaling to capabilities.

Hey, we're all in this together. I have been very fortunate over the
years, but I am over 70 now and got to take care of the family before
myself.

We all have to be a part of our lives, live your life, do not negate it.

HELP

You do not have A problem. It has been your own choice to marry and to stay
married, if you didn't want to do either you shouldn't have. But now you are
there, fix your attitude and stop whimpering, love the one you're with and
enjoy having the energy - as it seems from your activity here - of a 50 year
old and never stop learning new things and stay flexible. Small things
dynaudio have good mileage if you can afford the costly ones and small
things KEF have excellent mileage.

Gary Eickmeier

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[hank alrich]

Trevor wrote:

I'd rather good mono than bad stereo any day.

Me, too. It's rare today to find anyone among the general population of
music fans who has heard good mono. It can offer an very engaging sound,
with surprising depth.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

snip

I'd rather good mono than bad stereo any day.

+1

Trevor.



--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Right. And I'm not saying that there might not be someday some way to
effectively fake those acoustic cues.... if you had enough mikes around an
instrument that you could get a good sense of the sound in different
directions
you could predict how they'd interact with the room. But right now, there
is no such way. And, in the end, having such a method doesn't buy you
anything other than more things to go wrong.

I don't think it is necessary to get every angle of the whole spherical
output identical; all you need to do is get the general ratios and spatial
patterns more like live.

No, it needs to be pretty precise, as a little bit of EASE modelling will
demonstrate. A violin, for instance, radiates sound in all directions but
is very beamy at a few specific frequencies and you need to hit those beams
accurately with your measurements. You might not need the most precise of
positioning info but you will need the most precise of spectrum info.

By the time all of the off axis output of all of
the instruments gets integrated into the reverberant field such accuracy as
you describe is not necessary. That is how we hear the timbre of the
instruments in the first place. The total acoustical output of the
instrument is heard in the reverberant field, which also gives the
spaciousness of a good hall and good placement of the instruments, and so
on.

Right, but the problem is that the radiation pattern of some instruments
is very strange and consequently different rooms affect them dramatically
in different ways as you'll note if you've ever heard a french horn outdoors.

Again, all of this stuff has been studied in detail.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tobiah]

On 02/19/2014 11:18 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

[planning moving away from house with purposebuilt listening room]

... also
because she would not be able to handle it upon my demise.

It is very wise to ensure that ones housing matches ones situation in life,
and no harm is done by scaling to capabilities.

Hey, we're all in this together. I have been very fortunate over the
years, but I am over 70 now and got to take care of the family before
myself.

We all have to be a part of our lives, live your life, do not negate it.

HELP

You do not have A problem. It has been your own choice to marry and to stay
married, if you didn't want to do either you shouldn't have. But now you are
there, fix your attitude and stop whimpering, love the one you're with and
enjoy having the energy - as it seems from your activity here - of a 50 year
old and never stop learning new things and stay flexible. Small things
dynaudio have good mileage if you can afford the costly ones and small
things KEF have excellent mileage.

Why is everyone so down on Gary? I'm surprised he still hangs out here.

[Frank Stearns]

Tobiah writes:

snips

Why is everyone so down on Gary? I'm surprised he still hangs out here.

From what I can see, I basically like the guy, his energy and enthusiasm.

What I don't like is being misquoted, or having observations and statements from
myself and others twisted or deleted wholesale so as to fit into a construct that
might not be correct.

Being highly intelligent can be a two-edged sword. You can perhaps see things/do
things that haven't been done before, and within a given field of study you advance
the state of the art. And maybe you do so with opposition, but you clearly prove the
opposition wrong. Like any good science, the opposition ought to then be able to
reconstruct your experiments and get the same results. And they are then
appropriately chagrinned.

But within this thread, there have been some very different results!

Here's the tricky part: if a bubble has been burst, you can turn your superior
intelligence into understanding why and you start again. Or, your can turn your
energy into building walls and moats and other reinforcements to protect something
that simply doesn't work, except in perhaps a narrow case not applicable to a wider
world. Or worse, within your own mind you skew (or ignore) every piece of data to
fit the theory -- in other words, you fool yourself on an ongoing basis.

I'm not picking specifically on Gary; a few times I lived exactly the above in my
younger life. Some bitter pills were swallowed, but I learned a helluva lot from the
experiences.

Frank
Mobile Audio

[Trevor]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
You know what guys - I did it with this dedicated listening room/ home
theater home I built 25 years ago, but my better half is going to make me
move and leave it all soon. I designed it all so that it would appeal to a
prospective bride and yet be the best audio room I could conceive. It
looks like a huge family room, fireplace on one end (covered over with a
glass and brass front), it has some nice acoustic treatment that I made
from some half-rounds and pretty grill cloth; it has pictures and
miniature musical instruments decorating the walls (and acting as
dispersion, heh...) and three nice, overstuffed leather sofas for watching
and listening. Projector is overhead, screen is the far front wall painted
white. All electronics are in the adjacent room, which doubles as my
editing room for video. The only thing you see of electronics in the home
theater is the remote controls and infra red relay.

It is a 2800 sq ft pool home in the cul-de-sac of a nice, smallish 80 home
subdivision, four bedrooms one of which is the edit room. Air conditioned
and 3 car garage with opener -

And on and on, but you know what? All of this is not suitable to the
little lady because she didn't have a hand in designing it, and also
because she would not be able to handle it upon my demise.

So I've got to get all of my audio experimentation out of my system and
enjoy it while ai may, because tomorrow is another day. Bye bye ideal
listening room and laboratory for my audio ideas. Hello apartment or
whatever. Bye bye custom IMP speakers, hello Ebay.

Hey, we're all in this together. I have been very fortunate over the
years, but I am over 70 now and got to take care of the family before
myself.

HELP

Just tell her time to sell is when you have actually "demised", (or perhaps
require a nursing home) not before!
Somehow I doubt she'll divorce you :-)

Trevor.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Frank Stearns wrote:

Tobiah writes:

snips

Why is everyone so down on Gary? I'm surprised he still hangs out
here.

From what I can see, I basically like the guy, his energy and
enthusiasm.

+1, bin there, done that, moved on from the stuff he advocates because it is
a loss of clarity (in the temporal/imaging domain).

Frank
Mobile Audio

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
acquisition...
Tobiah writes:

snips

Why is everyone so down on Gary? I'm surprised he still hangs out here.

From what I can see, I basically like the guy, his energy and enthusiasm.

What I don't like is being misquoted, or having observations and
statements from
myself and others twisted or deleted wholesale so as to fit into a
construct that
might not be correct.

Being highly intelligent can be a two-edged sword. You can perhaps see
things/do
things that haven't been done before, and within a given field of study
you advance
the state of the art. And maybe you do so with opposition, but you clearly
prove the
opposition wrong. Like any good science, the opposition ought to then be
able to
reconstruct your experiments and get the same results. And they are then
appropriately chagrinned.

But within this thread, there have been some very different results!

Here's the tricky part: if a bubble has been burst, you can turn your
superior
intelligence into understanding why and you start again. Or, your can turn
your
energy into building walls and moats and other reinforcements to protect
something
that simply doesn't work, except in perhaps a narrow case not applicable
to a wider
world. Or worse, within your own mind you skew (or ignore) every piece of
data to
fit the theory -- in other words, you fool yourself on an ongoing basis.

I'm not picking specifically on Gary; a few times I lived exactly the
above in my
younger life. Some bitter pills were swallowed, but I learned a helluva
lot from the
experiences.

Frank
Mobile Audio

Sounds like you think I have lost already Frank. But within the Beolab 5
thread I have a lot of support from unexpected quarters. In any case, there
are a few "camps" in audio that would seem opposed to each other, strongly
advocated by their fans. I would point out the variety of speaker designs
and how different they are from each other, yet they all have strong
advocates.

My mission is to redefine how the system works to show which of those
designs is more correct, under what circumstances, and why. This is an
answer to the Linkwitz Challenge in which he asks the same questions. As
William Summerwerck always says, it is not the answers but the right
questions. No one except me, Siegfried, and perhaps Mark Davis, Amar Bose
and David Moulton have asked the same questions - and arrived at more like
my conclusions than yours.

The experimenting continues. I am building a new speaker design and should
have it in a month or two. Not sure how to tell the world about it yet, but
let's see how successful it is before I open my mouth. The stakes are high.
If I am wrong, I will have to concede to all of my naysayers. If I am right,
it will be the first Image Model Projector and should be the best speaker
yet because it will be "on theory" of everything I have learned about
imaging with its shaped radiation pattern for distance/intensity trading,
its negative directivity index and its image modeling to mimic the live
model.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Right. And I'm not saying that there might not be someday some way to
effectively fake those acoustic cues.... if you had enough mikes around
an
instrument that you could get a good sense of the sound in different
directions
you could predict how they'd interact with the room. But right now,
there
is no such way. And, in the end, having such a method doesn't buy you
anything other than more things to go wrong.

I don't think it is necessary to get every angle of the whole spherical
output identical; all you need to do is get the general ratios and spatial
patterns more like live.

No, it needs to be pretty precise, as a little bit of EASE modelling will
demonstrate. A violin, for instance, radiates sound in all directions but
is very beamy at a few specific frequencies and you need to hit those
beams
accurately with your measurements. You might not need the most precise of
positioning info but you will need the most precise of spectrum info.

By the time all of the off axis output of all of
the instruments gets integrated into the reverberant field such accuracy
as
you describe is not necessary. That is how we hear the timbre of the
instruments in the first place. The total acoustical output of the
instrument is heard in the reverberant field, which also gives the
spaciousness of a good hall and good placement of the instruments, and so
on.

Right, but the problem is that the radiation pattern of some instruments
is very strange and consequently different rooms affect them dramatically
in different ways as you'll note if you've ever heard a french horn
outdoors.

Again, all of this stuff has been studied in detail.
--scott

Studied in detail? Then what are they doing with all that study information?
If you know that instruments radiate in all directions into the reverberant
field, giving them their particular sound, and giving the group its
particular sound, then why sould you think you can take that sound, change
it to a direct field from your monitors, and kill the reflected sound from
around them? How do you expect that to sound anything like the live sound?

Just asking the right questions.

Gary

[Luxey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzc5vW9Ze44

[Tom McCreadie]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Right, but the problem is that the radiation pattern of some instruments
is very strange and consequently different rooms affect them dramatically
in different ways as you'll note if you've ever heard a french horn
outdoors.

Again, all of this stuff has been studied in detail.
--scott

Studied in detail? Then what are they doing with all that study information?
If you know that instruments radiate in all directions into the reverberant
field, givableing them their particular sound, and giving the group its
particular sound, then why sould you think you can take that sound, change
it to a direct field from your monitors, and kill the reflected sound from
around them? How do you expect that to sound anything like the live sound?

Just asking the right questions.

The data flowing down the cable from your amp to your speakers _already_
contains information on both direct and reverberant sounds of an instrument. Do
you really think that this information will obligingly let itself be
disentangled within your speaker, such that only the 'direct sound component'
gets radiated directly to your ears, while only the 'reverberant sound
component' get sprayed round your room surfaces (the latter to lamely mimic the
auditorium ambience)?

What you are doing is sending 'direct + reverberant' directly to your ears and
at the same time sending ''direct + reverberant' on an indirect room voyage.
Seems to me a bit like taking a piece of buttered bread and gratuitously
slobbering another layer of peanut butter atop.

Commercial classical CD's vary, of course, in the degree and quality of direct
and reverberant sounds - reflecting the auditorium acoustics, recording
techniques etc. So are you prepared to rebuild your listening room - or at least
rearrange the furniture or reposition the speakers - each and every time you
drop a fresh CD in the player?. Surely you would want to fine-tune things to
that particular CD, rather than be satisfied with a one-size-fits-all ambient
wash?

A couple of comments on your earlier posts:
Where did you get the notion that, if one only get direct sound from two
speakers, the sounds will inevitably appear as if they are localized in each
speaker. Nonsense. For years, the Quad folks would gladly demonstrate their
speakers sited behind (visually) opaque curtains.

As for your views on what's needed to create image depth, well, don't forget
that you can get a decent illusion of depth even from a mono recording, played
back through a single speaker, and - for that matter - listened to with a single
ear. Four parameters helping to distinguish a distant instrument from its
closer-sited twin are (a) arrival time delay of direct sounds; (b) lower ratio
of direct:reverb; (c) lower sound level, and (d) loss in the higher frequencies.
Only "b" might be a bit tougher to evaluate in mono.
--
Tom McCreadie

Live at The London Palindrome - ABBA

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Sounds like you think I have lost already Frank. But within the Beolab 5
thread I have a lot of support from unexpected quarters.

You haven't "lost". This is not a contest. You have "lost it", because
you continually seek reinforcement for ideas that have little support
among developed science. I reiterate that rarely in this forum have I
seen anyone so resistant to learning.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[S. King]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:45:32 -0500, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

BIG SNIP

The experimenting continues. I am building a new speaker design and
should have it in a month or two. Not sure how to tell the world about
it yet, but let's see how successful it is before I open my mouth. The
stakes are high. If I am wrong, I will have to concede to all of my
naysayers. If I am right,
it will be the first Image Model Projector and should be the best
speaker yet... SNIP
Gary

How will you know if it is the "best speaker yet"? Best implies a
comparison. What specific criteria will you measure? What speakers will
you compare your Image Model Projector to? Your previous arguments seem
to be as much about the listening room as about the speaker. Will you
test your Image Model Projector and other speakers in the same room?
Professionals typically need to make recordings that translate well on
everything from ear buds to automobiles to living rooms. Will your Image
Model Projector help in that endeavour? It would be useful in these
discussions to separate the requirements of a professional tool from the
personal preferences that might apply to an individual's listening system.

Steve

[Gary Eickmeier]

"S. King" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:45:32 -0500, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

BIG SNIP

The experimenting continues. I am building a new speaker design and
should have it in a month or two. Not sure how to tell the world about
it yet, but let's see how successful it is before I open my mouth. The
stakes are high. If I am wrong, I will have to concede to all of my
naysayers. If I am right,
it will be the first Image Model Projector and should be the best
speaker yet... SNIP
Gary

How will you know if it is the "best speaker yet"? Best implies a
comparison. What specific criteria will you measure? What speakers will
you compare your Image Model Projector to? Your previous arguments seem
to be as much about the listening room as about the speaker. Will you
test your Image Model Projector and other speakers in the same room?
Professionals typically need to make recordings that translate well on
everything from ear buds to automobiles to living rooms. Will your Image
Model Projector help in that endeavour? It would be useful in these
discussions to separate the requirements of a professional tool from the
personal preferences that might apply to an individual's listening system.

Steve

Good questions Steve. Where have you been anyway?

The main test of the new speakers will be listening to them. But yes, part
of the theory is the room, and they will not sound good in a lousy room, but
there are not that many bad rooms - just the ones that have had Sonex
plastered all over the place. But in most any normal room of a decent size,
say 15 ft wide and above, it should sound better. I am well aware of the
different tastes that are out there, but in a level playing field and done
blind mine should win, just as my cheaper prototypes did in The Challenge.
As for the rooms - if you can imagine a live band playing there, then my
speakers should also sound good there.

Will it do anythiing for mastering? Very possibly. First you could read Dave
Moulton's whole story. Second, I wonder if you have ever noticed that you
can't tell much about your work on headphones, even the finest ones. Things
are a lot clearer on speakers because you get the sound out of your head and
into a plausible acoustic space, with the room helping with localization and
spatial effects. If my speaker gets the spatial effects a lot better,
especially for multiple listeners, then it will indeed be a better mastering
system. If the sound becomes more three dimensional, it will be a better
tool for listening into your recordings.

Time will tell.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Tom McCreadie" wrote in message
...

The data flowing down the cable from your amp to your speakers _already_
contains information on both direct and reverberant sounds of an
instrument. Do
you really think that this information will obligingly let itself be
disentangled within your speaker, such that only the 'direct sound
component'
gets radiated directly to your ears, while only the 'reverberant sound
component' get sprayed round your room surfaces (the latter to lamely
mimic the
auditorium ambience)?

Welcome back Tom.

Have you ever noticed the difference in spatial qualities among speakers?
Direct firing boxes, dipoles, omnis? They all treat the data flowing down
the cables differently somehow. The short answer to your question, how do
they separate out the direct from the later arriving sounds, is just the
precedence effect.

What you are doing is sending 'direct + reverberant' directly to your ears
and
at the same time sending ''direct + reverberant' on an indirect room
voyage.
Seems to me a bit like taking a piece of buttered bread and gratuitously
slobbering another layer of peanut butter atop.

So how do you expect it to decode out if all you have is the direct sound to
your ears? Is there some theory or paradigm or model or scheme by which you
are going to recover the spatial patterns that were recorded from just those
two speaker boxes?

Commercial classical CD's vary, of course, in the degree and quality of
direct
and reverberant sounds - reflecting the auditorium acoustics, recording
techniques etc. So are you prepared to rebuild your listening room - or at
least
rearrange the furniture or reposition the speakers - each and every time
you
drop a fresh CD in the player?. Surely you would want to fine-tune things
to
that particular CD, rather than be satisfied with a one-size-fits-all
ambient
wash?

The model is a generalized model of the live sound, done in a certain way to
minimize the deleterious effects of the reflected sound and maximize the
spatial effects contained in the recording.

A couple of comments on your earlier posts:
Where did you get the notion that, if one only get direct sound from two
speakers, the sounds will inevitably appear as if they are localized in
each
speaker. Nonsense. For years, the Quad folks would gladly demonstrate
their
speakers sited behind (visually) opaque curtains.

"Localized in each speaker" makes no sense. Not sure what you are referring
to, but that is not what I would have said. I have experienced, and a lot of
writers have said, that the stereo soundstage extends only from speaker to
speaker. A sound panned extreme left will be heard from the left speaker and
that's that. This is what a lot of people think stereo is - just a
lateralization of the instruments from right to left. But if you set up your
system correctly with a lot of multi directional speakers, or especially my
IMPs, then the walls are part of the speakers and the imaging is from wall
to wall, rather than speaker to speaker.

As for your views on what's needed to create image depth, well, don't
forget
that you can get a decent illusion of depth even from a mono recording,
played
back through a single speaker, and - for that matter - listened to with a
single
ear. Four parameters helping to distinguish a distant instrument from its
closer-sited twin are (a) arrival time delay of direct sounds; (b) lower
ratio
of direct:reverb; (c) lower sound level, and (d) loss in the higher
frequencies.
Only "b" might be a bit tougher to evaluate in mono.
--
Tom McCreadie

A really simple example: Suppose you have a player piano, one of those
Yamahas or similar that can record keystrokes, pressures, everything. It is
in your listening room. Someone sits down and plays. You then will have
perfect reproduction by playing that file back on that piano after he
leaves. Right? But what if we want to do it with speakers? You could, say,
close-mike the piano and then play it back on speakers positioned in the
same spot as the piano, and having similar radiation patterns to the piano.
This should sound identical to the live instrument because the frequencies
and spatial patterns into the room are the same. The piano sound should also
have depth, real depth within your room, because the speakers have been
pulled out from the reflecting surfaces in your room so that the sound
really IS three dimensional.

But if you play the same recording back by padding that room and using
direct only speakers it will not sound the same because you have changed the
spatial nature of the sound fields put into the room. Same data streaming
down the wires, different (and very wrong) sound.

My Image Model Theory is - could be thought of - as a generalized attempt to
mimic the sound fields put into the hall or studio with those put into your
listening room. I call this the spatial "shape" of the live sound. It causes
us to re-think how stereo works, loudspeaker design, and system
installation.

There is a hell of a lot more to it than that, but that is what I am trying
to accomplish, what I am trying to communicate can be done.

Gary Eickmeier

[Luxey]

недеља, 23. фебруар 2014. 08.56.39 UTC+1, Gary Eickmeier је напи�ао/ла:

Have you ever noticed the difference in spatial qualities among speakers?
Direct firing boxes, dipoles, omnis? They all treat the data flowing down
the cables differently somehow. The short answer to your question, how do
they separate out the direct from the later arriving sounds, is just the
precedence effect.

So how do you expect it to decode out if all you have is the direct sound to
your ears? Is there some theory or paradigm or model or scheme by which you
are going to recover the spatial patterns that were recorded from just those
two speaker boxes?

Gary,

you're obnoxious and inbcapable to comprehend even the most basic concepts.
I really think you should stop poluting cyber space as it belongs to everybody, not only you, so please be nice to your environment.

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

"S. King" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:45:32 -0500, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

BIG SNIP

The experimenting continues. I am building a new speaker design and
should have it in a month or two. Not sure how to tell the world about
it yet, but let's see how successful it is before I open my mouth. The
stakes are high. If I am wrong, I will have to concede to all of my
naysayers. If I am right,
it will be the first Image Model Projector and should be the best
speaker yet... SNIP
Gary

How will you know if it is the "best speaker yet"? Best implies a
comparison. What specific criteria will you measure? What speakers will
you compare your Image Model Projector to? Your previous arguments seem
to be as much about the listening room as about the speaker. Will you
test your Image Model Projector and other speakers in the same room?
Professionals typically need to make recordings that translate well on
everything from ear buds to automobiles to living rooms. Will your Image
Model Projector help in that endeavour? It would be useful in these
discussions to separate the requirements of a professional tool from the
personal preferences that might apply to an individual's listening system.

Steve

Good questions Steve. Where have you been anyway?

Steve works in professional audio. That's where he has been.

The main test of the new speakers will be listening to them. But yes, part
of the theory is the room, and they will not sound good in a lousy room, but
there are not that many bad rooms - just the ones that have had Sonex
plastered all over the place. But in most any normal room of a decent size,
say 15 ft wide and above, it should sound better. I am well aware of the
different tastes that are out there, but in a level playing field and done
blind mine should win, just as my cheaper prototypes did in The Challenge.
As for the rooms - if you can imagine a live band playing there, then my
speakers should also sound good there.

Will it do anythiing for mastering? Very possibly.

This is the amazing part of your thought processes. If you put this
stuff you're blathering on about up to Dave Collins, Brad Blackwood, any
mastering engineer working at that level, you will be tossed from the
back court for a three pointer.

First you could read Dave
Moulton's whole story. Second, I wonder if you have ever noticed that you
can't tell much about your work on headphones, even the finest ones.

Wrong, plain and simple. Headphones often reveal lower level detail in
ways that speakers often do not. The presentation is not necessarily
more accurate, but one gets a look at underlying sonic activity with
which one might like to deal in one way or another.

Further, asking one like Steve, a lifelong professional in audio with an
impressive body of work in many environments, is he "has noticed"
something audiowise is to reinforce the point that you know not what you
are talking about, or to whom you are speaking.

Things
are a lot clearer on speakers because you get the sound out of your head and
into a plausible acoustic space, with the room helping with localization and
spatial effects. If my speaker gets the spatial effects a lot better,
especially for multiple listeners, then it will indeed be a better mastering
system. If the sound becomes more three dimensional, it will be a better
tool for listening into your recordings.

Time will tell.

Time has told, but you haven't looked at a clock.

Gary Eickmeier



--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic